'I don't consider myself a tea party candidate," Sean Bielat tells me over dinner. "I don't know what it means." But an hour later Mr. Bielat, Rep. Barney Frank's Republican challenger, receives a hero's welcome at the Spindle City Tea Party, a gathering of nearly 200 citizen- activists in this economically depressed mill town. As he approaches the stage, they stand, applauding and chanting "Go, Sean, go!"

What he tells them is consistent with this reporter's view of the tea party: "I'm starting to think that people want to take this country back—that people no longer believe that the government has the answers for our betterment, that the government can tell them how they should use their money. People believe that they have the power to create their own opportunity, if only they are given the chance. . . . There is so much wrong in Washington, I almost don't know where to start."

Mr. Bielat holds some views that this crowd would find uncongenial. For one, he favors raising the "cap" on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a glaring exception to his opposition to tax hikes. Another comes up during the tea party event, when a portly man with a white beard asks him: "Will you introduce legislation creating term limits in the federal government?"

The crowd applauds the question, and Mr. Bielat tries to duck it. He points out that the event isn't supposed to be a Q&A and offers to speak with the man one-on-one later. "I think people are interested to know," the man persists, and others shout in assent.

View Full Image

Associated Press

The longtime incumbent calls on help from Bill Clinton..Mr. Bielat relents—and responds with aplomb. "The answer's no. Here's why. I think that there's a real advantage to us bearing the responsibility of ensuring that there's turnover in the Congress. I think there's real advantage for us ensuring that we don't allow congressional staffers, who aren't elected, to have power because they stay there for generations. So I do understand the arguments for term limits. I personally oppose term limits." It's clear that he hasn't convinced everybody, but about half the crowd applauds. Not bad for a 35-year-old first-time candidate.

A native of Rochester, N.Y., Mr. Bielat caught the "political bug" as a teenager, when he did a stint as a House page. After earning a master's in public policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, he went to work as a consultant at McKinsey & Co. and an executive for iRobot Corp., a defense contractor based in Bedford, Mass. He's also a new father; his wife gave birth to their son, Theodore, over the summer.

Before Harvard, Mr. Bielat served four years as an officer in the Marines. He's still a major in the reserves, but he left active duty in 2002 and hasn't served in combat. I ask if that is a source of regret, and he says yes: "I disagreed with us going into Iraq, but all my Marines were there, all my friends were there. I wanted to be there. Instead I was sitting at Harvard, watching it on TV."

Mr. Bielat's varied résumé is quite a contrast with that of Mr. Frank, who is twice the challenger's age yet has spent more than half his adult life in Congress. "Of his 45 years of work experience, 44 have been either in political office or working for somebody in political office," Mr. Bielat says of the incumbent. "The other one was teaching at the Harvard Kennedy School." (No, Mr. Bielat did not have the congressman as a professor.)

Can he win? In a district that gave 63% of its vote to Barack Obama, Mr. Frank has to be reckoned the heavy favorite. But Mr. Bielat's quest does not look quite as quixotic as it did last October, when he quit his job at iRobot to pursue it.

Then, Massachusetts had the biggest single-party congressional delegation in the country: 12 Democrats and no Republicans. By the time Mr. Bielat made his candidacy official in February, the numbers had improved to 11 to 1 with Scott Brown's election to the Senate the preceding month.

Mr. Brown narrowly outpolled Democrat Martha Coakley in the district, which is politically more diverse than the Massachusetts stereotype. In addition to the ultraliberal Boston suburbs of Brookline and Newton—where Mr. Bielat and Mr. Frank, respectively, live—it includes more conservative outer suburbs and the blue-collar area just east of Rhode Island, beset by unemployment (13.3% in Fall River) and rife with Reagan Democrats.

Mr. Bielat says Mr. Frank "hasn't been tested. His support isn't nearly as strong as people assume, because he hasn't had a real opponent since 1982." Last month Mr. Bielat released an internal poll showing Mr. Frank ahead by only 10 points, 48% to 38%.

Mr. Frank dismissed the survey, but his own actions suggest he is worried. Two weeks ago Bill Clinton traveled to the district to stump for Mr. Frank—a visit that backfired, to hear Mr. Bielat tell it: "The minute I heard that he was bringing Bill Clinton to campaign, I shouted for joy, because it said a lot about the state of this campaign. . . . I don't think Bill Clinton being here won him a whole lot of votes. It got me a lot of money and coverage." Mr. Bielat raised some $400,000 just in the two weeks after the Sept. 14 primary.

Mr. Bielat notes that Mr. Frank has "pretty steadily maintained a 10-to-1 advantage" in funding. But some of that money has helped Mr. Bielat's name recognition. In the car on the way to dinner, we heard Mr. Frank's first radio ad of the campaign, which attacks Mr. Bielat by name for opposing the eponymous Dodd-Frank "financial reform" law. Mr. Bielat laughed and said he's grateful to the incumbent for letting voters know who he is.

Mr. Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.

No, I have not yet. I have seen him on several news programs and also subscribe to his Facebook page, which he updates daily. I do believe he could debate the One, because he has something the One does not. He speaks openly, honestly, and with conviction, hence he does not have to try and tailor his message to his audience. I think Pence holds great promise, if he gets enough support to make a genuine run at POTUS.

Logged

***Look at a man in the midst of doubt and danger, and you will determine in his hour of adversity what he really is***

The mainstream media is peddling the line that the Democrats are staging a comeback, slicing Republican leads. It is absolute nonsense. A close review of polling in every close House race in the nation indicates that Republicans now lead in 53 seats currently held by Democrats and are within five points in 20 more.

And the trend is Republican, not Democrat. Of the races where comparative data over the past few weeks is available, Republicans have gained in 33 while Democrats have gained in only 10.

On the Senate level, Republicans now lead in all ten states that are necessary for GOP control of the Senate, the smallest margin coming in Nevada where the Rasmussen Poll has the Republican, Sharron Angle, four points ahead. In West Virginia, Wisconsin, Washington State, and Illinois, the Republican has surged ahead dramatically in recent days and only in Colorado and California has there been slippage. The ten states which are now represented by Democrats where Republicans have the lead are:

North Dakota = +45

Indiana = +18

Arkansas = +18

Wisconsin = +12

Pennsylvania = + 7

West Virginia = + 6

Colorado = + 5

Washington State = + 5

Illinois = + 4

Nevada = + 4

Republican gains should be even greater than this polling indicates. The trend lines are decidedly in the GOP’s favor and Gallup Poll indicates that Republicans are twice as likely to be enthusiastic about voting as Democrats are.

The only note of caution for Republicans is that their leads in Democratic House seats are not substantial. In only 14 seats does the Republican candidate lead by more than ten points and most of those are open Democratic seats. But the Republican turnout machine – animated by Tea Party activists — will likely outperform its Democratic rivals.

And the Democratic Party has no message. Its campaigns are a hodgepodge of personal negatives and fabricated issues. No Democratic candidate is even trying to defend Obama’s health care legislation or argue that his stimulus program is working. Cap and trade is never mentioned by Democrats on the campaign trail. We have the spectacle of the most substantive legislative program in generations having been passed by Congress and now finding that it has no defenders in the election campaign, only Democrats scurrying to prove their independence.

All signs point to a growing Republican landslide.

The gigantic Republican gains of the past week indicate that party trend is now beginning to kick in big time. The Republican leads until this past week are largely due to the voting decisions of people who closely follow the process. The surge in Republican support in the past seven to ten days indicates that the less educated voters who do not follow politics as closely are breaking for the Republicans. Normally, these downscale voters are Democrats, but the economy and the alienating values of the Obama Administration (e.g. Ground Zero Mosque) seem to be driving them to the GOP.

Also boosting Republican prospects is the absence of social issues in the national debate. These elections are turning on unemployment, deficits, the economy, health care, and the national debt, not on gay rights or abortion. So, social liberals and libertarians see no reason not to vote Republican. Only in California are these traditional issues working in driving voters to the Democrats.

NEW CASTLE, Del. — When Chris Coons was asked last week about a new television commercial in which his rival in this state’s Senate race, Christine O’Donnell, assured voters that she was not a witch, his smile was controlled and very, very brief.

“That’s got to be one of the more memorable ways to introduce oneself,” Mr. Coons said. Then he quickly steered the discussion toward the economy.

In a subsequent interview here, when Ms. O’Donnell’s past denunciation of masturbation came up, he said only this: “I have 11-year-old twin boys, and this campaign has allowed us to accelerate awkward conversations.”

Ms. O’Donnell, whose warm embrace by the Tea Party helped her stage a surprising Republican primary upset, has given Mr. Coons, her Democratic opponent, plenty to pounce on. What he does for the most part is avoid it, on the apparent theory that she generates ample ridicule without any extra from him.

In fact, his campaign frames her in a strikingly deadpan manner. On his Web site recently, the opening image was not of him but of her, with these neutral words: “Meet our G.O.P. opponent.” There was no further commentary, and the picture — shiny hair, sparkling eyes — was decidedly flattering. For the Coons campaign, the mere fact of her was fodder enough.

This Senate race has drawn enormous scrutiny, and will be watched with special interest this week as the candidates have their first televised debate Wednesday and President Obama arrives Friday to help Mr. Coons raise money.

But the coverage, focused on Ms. O’Donnell, has mostly overlooked the unlikely, peculiar position her foe is in. At the start of the year, Mr. Coons, the New Castle County executive, was not even supposed to be on the ballot. Now he is an utterly accidental (and exceedingly cautious) front-runner figuring out how to take on someone who is in many ways his near opposite.

She: awash in disputes about what her educational credentials are and whether she has exaggerated them. He: a double major in political science and chemistry at Amherst College with graduate degrees from both the law and divinity schools at Yale University.

She: cheerleader pretty. He: science-club-president plain.

She: accused of using campaign donations for rent. He: affluent enough to have pumped $250,000 of his own money into his bid.

In a second television commercial Ms. O’Donnell released last week, she told voters: “I didn’t go to Yale. I didn’t inherit millions.”

And while she has for many years thrust herself before TV cameras, he still seems unaccustomed to them.

Rachel Maddow, the MSNBC talk show host, showed up with her crew for a Coons event last week, attaching a microphone to him for much of it. When a technician bent down to change the battery pack on Mr. Coons’s belt, he tensed up, fidgeted and, in an impatient voice, asked what the problem was.

The technician, John Blackman, later observed: “He’s not used to being the talent. That’s O.K. I’m here to break him in.”

Until January it was assumed that the state attorney general, Joseph R. Biden III, the vice president’s son, would run, and Mr. Coons could not foresee any political promotions on the near horizon. He said he figured he would maybe work at some point for Gov. Jack Markell, whom he assured, “I don’t have to be the top guy.” Then Mr. Biden begged off the race, and Democrats gave the slot to Mr. Coons.

His campaign was seen by many of them as “a suicide mission,” in the words of Jim Jordan, a veteran Democratic strategist. But that thinking presumed that his opponent would be Representative Michael N. Castle, a popular Republican moderate.

On the night the primary returns came in, Delaware’s senior senator, Thomas R. Carper, called Mr. Coons to relay two thoughts. One was that his life was about to change drastically. The other, Mr. Carper said, was that he should be sure to speak kindly about Mr. Castle, whose centrist supporters were now up for grabs.

Two recent polls, by Fairleigh Dickinson University and the University of Delaware, show Mr. Coons ahead of Ms. O’Donnell by more than 15 points.

Mr. Coons, 47, grew up in a Wilmington suburb. Although his family endured some financial hardships around the time his parents divorced in his early teens, he described his childhood as “fairly sheltered, privileged” in a personal essay in the Amherst student newspaper.

His mother married Robert Gore, whose family founded W. L. Gore & Associates, makers of Gore-Tex fabric, and Mr. Coons went to high school at Tower Hill, a prestigious private academy where he ran cross-country, wrestled and “read a lot of books,” said Charles Chesnut, a close friend since elementary school. J. R. R. Tolkien was a favorite author.

In his junior year at Amherst, when he went abroad to study, his destination was not Western Europe but East Africa: Nairobi, Kenya, to be exact. And he returned with newly liberal political beliefs, as he wrote in that essay, which has drawn fire from Republicans because of its title: “Chris Coons, the Making of a Bearded Marxist.”

Mr. Coons has said repeatedly that the title was humorous hyperbole. And while he writes in the essay that Kenya forced him to examine whether his “beliefs in the miracle of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America might be largely untrue,” he goes on to say, “I have returned to loving America, but in the way of one who has realized its faults.”

A devout Presbyterian, he flirted with the idea of becoming a minister and has long been active in humanitarian work, both personally and professionally. He rounded up $400,000 in contributions from family members to start the Delaware chapter of the “I Have a Dream” Foundation, and, after law school, took a job in New York City with the foundation, which supports higher education for children in low-income communities.

In the mid-1990s, he moved back to Delaware; married (he and his wife now have three children); and went to work as a lawyer for the Gore corporation, a position he kept while serving in the part-time, elected position of president of the New Castle County Council from 2000 to 2004. In late 2004 he was elected to the full-time post of executive of the county, which includes Wilmington and is by far Delaware’s most populous, with about 535,000 of the state’s roughly 885,000 residents.

He cut spending while raising taxes three times and calls himself “a fiscal conservative.” He has said that he would have voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program bank bailouts but in favor of the health care overhaul. He speaks elegantly and confidently on a broad range of issues, but he shows flashes of irritation with aspects of campaigning.

In the interview, he groused that in talking with a local reporter about time spent in South Africa in the 1980s, he had to provide an education on apartheid. “Let the record not reflect any disrespect” for local journalists, he added.

As a photographer zoomed in, he winced. “I’m just not used to people taking 100 pictures of me while I’m trying to be thoughtful,” he said. “I’ve had six months of no one paying any attention to my campaign whatsoever.”

53 seats recaptured would be nice. If true, it makes a 106 vote swing- from 77 seats down to 29 seats up(?) or something like that. Too early though to start counting totals before elections. Send money instead and call people. As Obama used to say, get in their face, lol. Volunteer to be a poll judge. There will be important close races and we will no doubt slide back into recount wars again.

O'Donnell never should have spoken out against America's favorite pastime; not the business of a small and limited government. People should handle that decision on their own. Still, I like O'Donnell. You would think the opponent's flirt with Marxism would be worse for the country than a little youthful witchcraft.

If the momentum continues, the next races that need to swing are Calif. Senate (Boxer) and the MN Governor race.

Regarding likely voters and off-year elections, I honestly don't understand why someone rational would care about the Presidency but not enough about the congress to go out and vote. A no-show is a form of a no confidence vote. The lesser of two evils is still a very important decision. -----------From BBG's link: Slavery Begins with Mandatory VolunteeringRight Wing Extremists: Jefferson, Adams, Madison and MeFreedom is a Right, ( I like: Freedom is MY Entitlement Program)

Michael wrote: "Of all the perspective candidates for '12 that I see now, Mike Pence is my pick at this stage in the game. Very articulate, ultra-conservative, and very principled. I think he would make an excellent POTUS."

Thank you for posting that. I will add Mike Pence to my short list to consider for first choice, and for certain I will support him if he is nominated.

"As Democrats and Republicans fight for control of Congress in next month's midterms, the former first lady and senator will be sitting it out...barred by convention and tradition from partisan political activity as America's top diplomat...

"I am not in any way involved in any of the political campaigns that are going on up to this midterm election," Clinton said last week."-----She was answering a question I think no one was asking. Wow, does that sound like someone who will soon be attacking the failures of this administration!

Please, please please, moderate and sensible Democrats, pick someone other than BO or HRC in 2012.

With the Internet, we have all become fixated on that day's polling, following the most minute changes in the swing districts on Realclearpolitics.com. But we are overstating the importance of polling in determining the outcome of the coming elections. (Odd thought coming from me!)

The fact is that while Republicans lead in 53 House seats now held by Democrats and are within five points in 20 more, the margins are very thin. In only 14 Democratic seats is the Republican leading by 10 points or more. In all the other districts, it is turnout that will determine the victor.

Going into the election, it would seem that the GOP has a big advantage in turning out voters. Not only is its secret weapon -- the tea parties -- outworking and out-hustling the Democrats, but polls show that Republicans are twice as enthusiastic about voting as are Democrats.

All indications from the field suggest a big GOP turnout, while Democrats tend to stay at home.

In Ohio's First Congressional District, where Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus is trying to fend off a challenge from Republican Steve Chabot, the ratio of early ballots requested by Democrats and by Republicans is, so far, about even. In 2008, it was a three-to-one Democratic edge at this time of year.

So, in analyzing polls to determine whether Republican challengers will defeat Democratic incumbents, three variables are coming into play but are not yet showing up in the polls, all of which work to the Republicans' advantage:

-- The undecided vote usually goes against the incumbent.

-- Republicans are a lot more motivated to vote than Democrats are.

-- While normally late deciders tend to be Democrats, the levels of unemployment and discontent among undecided voters would indicate that they are likely to break Republican.

So what should the Republicans do with this information? Obviously, they need to work harder to bring out the vote. But they also need to adjust their sights higher and aim for more seats. To confine themselves to the races in which they hold slight leads or are within five points would be to leave on the table dozens of Democratic incumbents who could be defeated in this landslide year.

The danger here is not overconfidence but underconfidence, and that Democratic incumbents who could be defeated will skate to victories. Despite a massive victory in the offing for Republicans, there could be great gnashing of teeth when they see how narrowly some of the icons of the Democratic Party are re-elected.

Speaking of Dick Morris he was asked if he is a Republican or not, I think by O'Reilly.

Excellent question because of course he spent the 90's as we all know keeping Clinton relevant. Is he just an opportunist looking for whoever will hire him or what?

I can't quite recall but I think he answered something to the effect that he agrees with conservative values and more or less that is where is heart is. I liked the answer.

A guy who day after day gets up there and points out Repubs are aiming to low is exactly the type of guy I would want as a leding strategist. And if the Repubs take the Senate Morris was way out front calling it!

Heck, get him the girls with nice toes - who the heck cares.

Unlike an opposite player - Arianna Huffington who when she couldn't get a job with Bush went liberal just to spite him (my theory anyway).

Crafty, I apologize for not getting this posted here sooner. Mike Pence:

Why He MattersAt a GlanceCurrent Position: House Republican Conference Chairman (since November 2008)Career History: Chairman,Republican Study Committee, 2005 to 2006; Member, U.S. House of Representatives, since 2001; Radio Host, Mike Pence Show, 1994 to 2000Birthday: June 7, 1959Hometown: Columbus, Ind.Alma Mater: Hanover College, B.A., 1980; Indiana University, J.D, 1986Spouse: KarenReligion: ProtestantDC Office: 1317 Longworth House Office Building, 202-225-3021District Offices: Anderson, 765-640-2919; Richmond, 765-962-2883; Muncie, 765-747-5566Though he’s now one of the most prominent Republicans in the House, Pence never forgot his radio roots. As chair of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), Pence worked to promote the conservative agenda. He is a popular guest on television and radio and knows how to use a press conference to his advantage. Friends have nicknamed him “Rush Limbaugh on decaf.”(1)Pence’s profile rose in the 111th Congress as he assumed the title of House GOP Conference chairman, a post to which he was elected in November 2008 after Republicans were thrashed in the elections. As the face of a new House GOP leadership, Pence is charged with resurrecting Republicans’ battered brand and trying to sell it to a broad swath of voters. The new role seems tailor-made for the media-savvy Republican, who has challenged the party leadership in the past. “If you can’t communicate, you can’t govern,” he told Biz Voice magazine in 2007.(2)Pence was first elected to Congress with 51 percent of the vote in 2000, and has been reelected easily since. He was named "Conservative of the Year" by Human Events in 2007.(3)

Path to PowerPence was born in Columbus, Ind., one of six children. As a teenager, he was a supporter of President John F. Kennedy, in large part because, like Kennedy, he was raised Catholic.

Pence received his undergraduate degree from Hanover College in 1980. It was at Hanover that he experienced a conversion of sorts — from Democrat sympathizer to Republican, and from Catholic to evangelical protestant. He attended Indiana University law school, where he received his J.D. in 1986.

Pence started working as an attorney, but quickly found his way into the political spotlight. He ran unsuccessfully for the House seat he now holds in 1988 and 1990, losing both times to Rep. Phil Sharp (D-Ind.), a moderate Democrat.After his second defeat, Pence wrote a piece called “Confessions of a Negative Campaigner” for the Indiana Policy Review. In it, he quoted St. Paul and apologized for accusing his opponent of shady business dealings. “It is wrong, quite simply, to squander a candidate's priceless moment in history,” he wrote. “It seems more grievous that I left my supporters so few clues as to how I would have governed differently.”(4)After his second defeat, Pence took a break from campaigning, but not from politics. He was the president of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, a conservative think tank, and the radio host of “The Mike Pence Show, a right-leaning talk program that was syndicated across the state from 1994 to 2000.

U.S. HouseWhen then-Rep. David McIntosh (R-Ind.) left his seat to run for governor in 2000, Pence jumped into the House race. He defeated five other candidates in the Republican primary. In the general election, he was opposed by Robert Rock, an attorney and the son of a former lieutenant governor. At the last minute Bill Frazier, a former Republican state senator, also entered the race as an independent.

Rock attacked Pence for his lack of military service and Frazier argued that he would offer more relief for middle- class families. But Pence’s call for across-the-board tax cuts and Medicare reform resonated with voters. He won with 51 percent of the vote.

Leading House ConservativePence quickly became one of the party’s leading conservative voices, railing against the dangers of big government. In 2005, he was elected unanimously as chairman of the conservative and powerful Republican Study Committee. In that job, he vowed to put more conservative federal judges on the bench, limit abortion rights and cut spending and entitlement programs like Medicaid.

Pence ran for House minority leader in 2006, arguing that the party needed to return to its “small government ideology.” However, Pence couldn’t overcome Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) popularity and his own reputation for opposing Republican legislation. He lost, 168 to 27.(5)In 2008, former rival Boehner convinced him to run for GOP conference chairman. According to Politico, Pence had promised Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) he would stay out of the race, but changed his mind. He ran unopposed. (6)Pence declined a run for retiring Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Ind.) Senate seat in 2010.

The IssuesPence is one of the most outspoken conservatives in the Republican Party. He is a particular champion of controlling the federal budget and cutting government spending, and also supports free markets and “traditional” values.

His decisions are guided by his religion — he tells people “I am a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”(7)Pence voted with his party 91 percent of the time during the 110th Congress.( However, he has opposed his party on some key measures when they don’t conform to his political beliefs. He voted against President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behing, the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit and a bankruptcy bill because it included a measure supporting abortion rights.(9)Pence gained notice (and was attacked by many colleagues) when he challenged former Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) assertion that it would be impossible to compensate for spending in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina with budget savings elsewhere. Pence and his conservative colleagues proposed numerous ways to save money in the federal budget through an initiative called Operation Offset.

Though the House GOP leadership was furious, “Operation Offset” sparked a debate in Washington and ushered in a renewed effort to limit government spending.

"Katrina breaks my heart," Pence said in 2005. "Congress must do everything the American people expect us to do to meet the needs of families and communities affected by Katrina. But we must not let Katrina break the bank for our children and grandchildren." (10)ImmigrationPence was at the forefront of the 2006 immigration debate. He worked with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) to draft a plan that would appeal to hard-line Republicans and proponents of a guest-worker program. The legislation would have required illegal aliens to leave the country and then return on a two-year visa, which could be extended if the recipient passed an English proficiency test.

The measure also proposed creating a privately-run database that would match immigrants with openings companies were unable to fill with Americans.(11)The proposal was seen as political blasphemy by many in the GOP base. Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan likened Pence’s involvement with the plan to a scene of betrayal in the "The Godfather". Team America, a conservative political action committee, launched a web site feature called “Pence Watch.”(12)The measure ultimately failed.

Protecting JournalistsIn 2008, Pence surprised conservatives by supporting a federal shield law that would have protected journalists from revealing their sources to federal officials. “What’s a conservative like me doing passing a law that helps reporters?” Pence asked during a House debate.

He explained “the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press … it’s about protecting the public’s right to know.”(13)

Pence works closely with other conservative members of the House. He is especially close with Hensarling and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.). He worked with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on the 2005 federal shield law to protect journalists and has allied himself with prominent senators such as Hutchison.

Pence was the only House member to file a lawsuit charging that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law was unconstitutional. At the time, he said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) “was so deep in bed with the Democrats his feet are coming out of the bottom of the sheets.”(14) Their relationship has remained chilly.

Positives that I see at least from reading this: He is a consistent, common sense unapologetic conservative with the ability to articulate wise policies. He is an adult who has been on the scene for quite a time, not a newcomer. He is in leadership at a time when republicans stood united against Obamanomics , ObamaCare and ObamaDebt. No mindless follower, he opposed his party at all the right times it sounds, he voted against expansion of the federal government in Education, he voted against the new entitlement program and a bill supporting abortion rights. "Conservative of the Year" by Human Events in 2007" probably means he is conservative enough and pro-free-trade means he is on the pro-economic-growth side of an issue that sometimes divides conservatives.

The flip side of that, like with Bolton, Palin and others, is he so conservative that he cannot attract independents and moderates? I would say no, he will do fine being consistent and articulate as opposed to people like McCain and Romney who had to jump around on key issues. Dems could compete for the middle by nominating a moderate, fiscal conservative, strong America centrist - but that would be a good thing. Make my day.

Key factor missing IMO is executive experience. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter (and FDR and so on) were governors. OTOH, Obama had none when elected, and nothing but a negative recin now. i would put an experienced House member in leadership on an equal footing with being a prominent senior senator. HRC and Obama were junior senators but so was JFK. Bush Sr and Truman were sitting VP's. Eisenhower general/war hero. In context, no one on either side today is running with a full set of credentials so that question will all be comparative.

I will keep an eye out for him. I'm not seeing enough preparation there yet for the Presidency, but there are intriguing hints of potential. An ability to communicate effectively, seasoned by years of talk radio and the ability to converse with regular folks, are valuable attributes.

Interesting note that seemed to get lost is that Bill Clinton has been out there supporting Democrats. Makes sense that he would go to places where the Clintons are popular. Also true that politics is pay back and to buy favors forward. Kind of a tough observation follows that he is only supporting candidates that backed Hillary.

Bill Clinton back out campaigning 'for everybody that helped Hillary run for president' against Obama

"Speculation about Hillary Clinton's continued presidential ambitions is rife. Husband Bill is back on the campaign trail, offering thanks to those who backed her in 2008 – and laying the foundations for another try in 2016."(?) [the story is theirs, the question mark on the year is mine.]

"Please, please please, moderate and sensible Democrats, pick someone other than BO or HRC in 2012."

I couldn't agree more. Yet we both know Hillary is next in line and I also agree the only question is which year. I don't get it when I keep hearing what a "great job" she is doing. Why? What has she accomplished and what specifically is so great about it? I have not heard one specific accomplishment to support this conclusion. It is almost like some sort of urban myth running around the media. I really do not find her impressive. I think a John Bolten could run circles around her with his intellect compared to hers. She is extremely careful as to what she says all the time with running in 12 or 16 obviously always in the back of her mind. But I have NEVER heard anythin earth shattering genius coming out of her.

"I agree that he does not have the executive experience, and that is often a deal-killer. I hope his other attributes make up for it,"

First I think we call it 2 sets of rules. Obama was a neighborhood activist, not a problem!

There is no perfectly positioned candidate that is going to appear this time so looking closely at each of these choices is extremely important. These governors come in and study hard on national and especially foreign policy where they have no experience, while congressional members often have not governed or led a major organization. Romney I think has the most executive experience but part of that was to usher in new government health care. Given imperfect choices, I will take a candidate who is high on character, intellect and communications ability with clear, consistent and conservative stands on the issues over one who governed based on political shrewdness but without consistent, guiding principles.

CCP hits another home run: "By the way what is Condi Rice doing praising Clinton and Bamster? I guess she wants another job."

I was just going to say she is selling a book. I know she wants foreign policy to be non-partisan and the diplomats are always less hawkish than the conservative candidates and like Ge. Powell we don't really know her politics, but CCP nailed it. She is the next Sec. of State, possibly very soon.

Obama wanted very much to have one or two Republicans in his large cabinet and they need to be in places where they can't hurt him. We know Gates is leaving. We don't know Hillary is leaving, but is there enough writing on the wall? Condi would be perfect for him politically and not harm his agenda one bit.

- Should fit in fine with this administration. I believed there was something more to her thinking and her non-strategies that we would find out later. No so. This book is about people in her early life.

"What has Condi Rice said about Clinton and Bamster?"

Rice said, "Nothing in this president's methods suggests this president is other than a defender of America's interests."

- Isn't that pretty much the way candidate Obama spoke of the Bush administration? (sarcasm)

I find myself worrying about how cocky some of the reporting by our usual sources is getting; if Angle loses in NE, if O'Donnell loses in DE, the Reps do not take the Senate and the Tea Party will be blamed by the RINOs and the chattering classes.

WEST NEWTON, Mass. - President Barack Obama said Americans' "fear and frustration" is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. "And the country's scared."

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his "view from the Oval Office." He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to "think clearly" and said the burden is on Democrats "to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling."

Have no fears Crafty. This is a major shift of the landscape no matter what the final score is. RINOs ran with, not against the so-called tea party movement. McCain moved to the right instead holding his ground. Lindsey Graham backed out of cap trade sponsorship and he isn't up until next cycle. Fiorini said she welcomed Palin's endorsement. It was the success of the inexperienced tea party newcomers in the primaries that stole the whole campaign theme from the Democrats, which was to run against giving power back to the people who got us in this mess. They have been mumbling with total incoherence ever since.

If Sharron Angle wins, the takedown of the majority leader in his own state is the cover story, and it won't be by some wishy-washy-sounding Dem-lite. The campaign was waged directly against the major policies he supported. The sound byte isn't some lofty better tomorrow theme, it was 'man up Harry Reid, these entitlements need addressing'.

If Reid wins, then the powerful majority leader barely held his own seat against a neophyte. Hardly a victory.

Obama needs R's to take the house. A bunch of scared Dems with a 1 vote margin won't give him cover for everything sure to go wrong for him. When the moveon.org recount artists finished stealing the 60th vote in the senate, Al Franken, they lost their bogeyman. Not George Bush, not Rush Limbaugh, not Republican senators blocking votes, nothing stopped them from doing whatever they wanted. So they did and we are now able to hold them accountable.

It is not just our side reading the polls this way. Gibbs gave away what he sees in the polls with a comment about how their wins in 2006 and 2008 were so widespread that they now have too many members defending seats (as Democrats to defend a liberal agenda) that are a mis-match in these (conservative, heartland) districts and states.

Look at Indiana. Look at North Dakota. They had no business trying to sell this agenda in those locations. For a long time moderate Dems had carved out a thoughtful tack in states were heavily conservative. But not possible with a Pelosi-Obama full speed ahead agenda. Evan Bayh saw it first. Then Byron Dorgan. "In his statement, Dorgan said his retirement was borne out of the desire to spend more time with his family." http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0110/In_shocker_Dorgan_announces_retirement.html The Republican now leads by almost 50 points in this open Dem seat. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/senate/nd/north_dakota_senate_hoeven_vs_potter-1419.html In Indiana, it is almost 20 points.

Look at Wisconsin. Feingold is a legend. Down by 7. Colorado is a hugely indicative battleground state. Obama won Colorado by 9 points. Here is the latest Ken Buck ad, gives voice to both conservatives and independents:

The real problem is that if this turns out to be true, there still is so little policy change that can be accomplished quickly.

The real test in this campaign was about 6 months ago. When they finished passing health care they thought people would breathe a sigh of relief and then jump on-board. The popular President will come to your district and support you if you support him. Instead the polling kept getting worse.

The other test was the economy. We pumped $3 trillion of crude, Keynesian deficit stimulus into this economy. That should at least mask some of the underlying problems employers and investors face, yet unemployment stayed near 10% and the new taxes of Jan.1 and health care haven't even kicked in yet.

These policies are tied to failure. After Nov. 2, we are still in an election year with the Presidential talk and candidates breaking out soon. We will have divided government, with momentum on the issues and a crucial new election cycle looming. Their side will no longer control the debate. Neither side will control the senate in terms of 60 votes. If popular legislation gets through both chambers, these will not be easy or cost-free vetoes for a man presumably seeking reelection.

2012 is a big test for the senate as well. That is the 6 year mark for the 2006 sweep. Blue senators in red states know that. They are far more likely to triangulate than Obama. That is the story i would watch.

I saw yesterday that Murkowski has pulled to a statistical dead heat with Miller in Alaska. Engle can lose NE (and Reid IMHO is just the man to cheat to help make that happen). I read that O'Donnel in the debate bobbled the whole issue of teaching creationism in science class and came off looking like an ingnoramus on the first amendment and separation of church and state. Paladino is looking quite the ass in NY.

If the promised tsunami doesn't happen this will all get played as an intramural squabble between the whacko tea partiers and the Rinos.

The goalposts have been moved so often, they aren't even in the same state as the football field. Remember how the repubs were nothing but a regional political party in the southeastern US after 2008. Remember how Obama was to usher in 40 years of far left dem dominance in American politics?

The actual survival of the US is in doubt. There is an ugly, looming crisis that isn't going away and won't be fixed by politics as usual.

Crafty, I will get back to you on Nov.3 with more about this. There are some lousy polls out today. Basically we still have conservatives running even in blue states which is amazing and Dems getting crushed in red states.

Losing NY is normal. Merkowski is a Republican so RINOs too are playing a role in the divisiveness. Merkowski and Castle lost but didn't accept the results of the process that got them there. We have been losing to Harry Reid since 1986. There are some serious drawbacks to having a person like Castle win in Delaware - to say he is a Republican and then vote against our interests 50% of the time - it gives future Dem candidates nationwide bipartisan cover for those positions and votes. Castle lost because of lack of voter support, not some back room party decision. Only a back room deal could have prevented the primary challenge, hardly preferable.

Taking the fight to both parties was the only way to a) get any positive change, and b) disrupt the argument that this is nothing but a 2006 or 2008 rematch, our reckless spenders against theirs.

The intra-party squabble fear is valid, but unavoidable. Taking the fight to them means you piss a few people off, but what was the alternative? Without the rise up of the grass roots, the so-called tea party, we would 2-6 more years Pelosi-Obama leftist business as usual and maybe the collapse of the republic. Because it was all grassroots and no leadership, we have some very inexperienced candidates. The damage done to the old Republican party by this uprising overall is a very good and necessary thing. The brand name is partially repaired (being a Republican now means something) and we will have a whole lot more good candidates available at all levels in the future because of the events of this year.

Exhibit B: France is tearing itself apart over a move to bring state pensions under control.

This is the end result of the welfare-state. The Europeans (and Democrats here at home) want a utopia where all needs are met, all the hungry are fed, all the children warm and safe, all the sick made whole, all the evil punished and the innocent made free, a land where all is peace and all live in harmony. Instead, the welfare-state is waste and weakness and impoverishment and upheaval and ennui. It is generational warfare, class warfare, enormous debts, squalor, meanness, shortages, selfishness. It is, at base, the end of civil society. Communist economies fall faster because they take the poison pure; it takes the merely socialist ones more time to sicken and die.

It is not clear to me that either England or France will be able to make these reforms "stick". England might perhaps have more of a chance than France does, but even in Albion the days of Dame Margaret Thatcher are well past -- much of the country not only relies on the dole (and I count the NHS as part of that), but remembers nothing else. Entire generations of citizens have been born and grew to adulthood in a land of a debased civil society, outlandish political promises and a hidebound, near-moribund private sector. A country with "free" healthcare, a generous welfare system where it was often more remunerative not to work, and a private sector so sclerotic and union-infested that a structural unemployment rate of 8-10% was accepted as perfectly normal. Young people pursue endless, meaningless degrees (using state-provided funds more often than not) and have basically given up on the antiquated notions of marriage and family, to say nothing of religion. (No building in England is so empty as a Christian church nowadays.)

It's no accident that Germany is doing so much better in relative terms than England and France. Germany had to re-assert the traditional Teutonic work-ethic after World War II out of absolute necessity. The re-integration of East Germany in the 1990's forced them to be even more efficient, more productive, more financially conservative. England and France, contrarily, went the route of social welfare -- the more "liberal" route. And in the end instead of reaping "fairness" and societal harmony, they reaped instead penury and unrest. The redistributionist route led -- as it always, always does -- to a dead end.

We see our future playing out in England and France right now. Only our upheavals are going to be much larger and more violent than theirs. Our population is larger, more diverse, and more polarized; our politics more fraught; our debts and obligations massively larger. Our passions are harder to rouse, but once aflame, take a long time to burn out.

As in France, we have let an enormous segment of our population -- perhaps as much as half -- fall into a state where they depend on government largesse for a substantial part of their income. This is not money they earned themselves, not wages or savings, but rather money squeezed from the more productive half of the country. Half of our citizens pay no income taxes at all. An increasing number will draw public-sector pensions, Social Security, and medical insurance (Medicare/Medicaid) in amounts that far exceed what they contributed to those plans. Half of the US population, in short, lives not by the fruits of their own toil but by the (coerced) charity of others, as filtered and distilled through the hand of the government. This can not -- it can not, by the laws of economics and simple physics -- continue. The mathematics of the problem trump even philosophical issues of fairness, of governance, of ethics or law. The mathematics simply will not allow it.

Consider the French. They are rioting over a proposal to raise the national age of retirement from 60 to 62. Germany's is 65 (going to 67) -- how happy will German workers be to subsidize the early retirements of their French neighbors? The French labor unions are on a rampage, denouncing the move as a violation of a "promise" the country made to the workers. (If this reminds you of California, New Jersey, New York, and Michigan -- well, the situations are closely analogous.) The word "promise" is illuminating: people have stopped thinking of social welfare as a "benefit" or a "perquisite", and have begun instead to think of it as a "right" or a "promise". A legally-binding promise which cannot be broken, though the heavens fall. Well, the heavens are falling, and the sovereigns will discover a universal truth: a government "promise" is not a suicide pact. Reality will assert itself, one way or another.

Governments the world over are discovering that the river of money is not endless. That seemingly-inexhaustable mountain of wealth has been turned into an ocean of debt that will take decades to pay off. The spendthrift habits of the Western nations will put burdens on our children, and other generations not yet born, that should outrage us as a people. We are investing in the old rather than the young, and are punishing risk-taking and entrepreneurship rather than rewarding it. Our tax regimes seem to be deliberately crafted to kill innovation and long-term thinking. (What does "legacy" mean if the wealth I have accumulated in my life cannot be passed on to my children or heirs, but is instead eaten by the all-consuming government?) Young people -- young families -- are the foundation upon which Western Civilization is built. Neglect them, overburden them, cheat them, and you are committing societal suicide.

One measure of how self-destructive Europe has become can be seen in the birthrate. In developed countries like France, the birthrate among natives has plummeted to below the replacement rate (though some dispute this). Among immigrants who share little cultural affinity with the French (or are actively hostile to it), the birthrate has soared. What this means in 20 or 30 years is that what is "French" (or "English" or "American") will be determined by those same children. The same goes for Spain, for Portugal, for Germany, for England -- indeed, for the entire continent. (America at least has a positive population growth, albeit not by much. And our immigrants are also outbreeding the natives by a wide margin.) Demographics is a game of last man standing: the people who make the laws 20 or 30 years from now are the babies being born today. If you don't produce children, you have no voice in the future.

If the governments of the West have an excuse -- however weak and puling -- it is this: they meant well. It is not wrong to wish that every citizen have free health care, free food, free housing, and some money to spend even if they have no job. It's not wrong; it's just impossible. Health care is a service that has huge costs associated with it. These costs cannot be "magicked" away just because we find them inconvenient. Food must be grown, transported, packaged, and prepared -- all costs that must be accounted for. Shelter does not precipitate out of thin air. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that "the government" can provide these things to us at no cost, because "the government" must pay for these things just as individuals do, and because the government has only one source of wealth -- the citizens -- that's where it must go for the money. So if Bob is given 'free' health care, 'free' food, and a 'free' apartment, the government isn't paying for it; Tom, Jane, Howard, and Sue are paying for it. And at a vastly inflated cost due to the innate governmental inefficiency that dilutes every dollar that passes through their hands. Soon the social welfare costs eat up the money intended for good and necessary governmental expenditures like the military, the police, and infrastructure. Social welfare becomes a beast that eats everything.

We are living in an age where citizens will have to re-think their basic relationship to their government, and to each other. The government is not -- cannot be -- the cornucopia that provides for all needs for all citizens. It cannot even provide for most needs for most citizens. The math only works if the producers outnumber the welfare recipients, and by quite a large margin; but this margin is long gone. France and England blew past the 50% mark long ago. The United States is teetering on the edge of a 50/50 split.

Citizens must once again be taught that they, and only they, are responsible for their lives. A civilized nation provides for the helpless, the weak, and the defenseless. But it does not expand the definition of those words so broadly that it encompasses half of its citizens. A nation that values self-reliance and ambition must accept that "opportunity" emcompasses the possibility of failure. Failure -- even ruin -- is a necessary and inevitable part of any market-based economy. You cannot engineer failure out of the equation without rendering it meaningless.

As I said, I am not hopeful for most of Europe (and even Germany is weaker than it seems). England may yet surprise me, but their culture is weaker now than it has ever been. The primary ingredient of recovery is will, and I just don't know if the dependent scions of Albion have enough left to climb out of the hole they're in.

Which brings us to America. Do we have the will to climb out of the gargantuan hole we have dug ourselves into? It remains an open question. I find encouragement in the rise of the Tea Party, but discouragement in the sweeping victory of Barack Obama. Half of my fellow citizens would prefer to bleed the body politic until it dies; as long as they do not outlast the flow of money, they care nothing for what comes after. But I care about legacy, about culture, and about the whole idea of America as a place where you can go as far as talent and ambition can take you. The unfortunate fact, though, is that much talent and ambition will have to be expended in simply paying off our massive debt, and in reforming our nonsensical entitlement programs. (I've said it many times, but it bears repeating: if you're not going to reform Social Security and Medicare, then don't bother doing anything, because it won't matter anyway.)

We are poised on the edge of a knife. On one side: bankruptcy, insolvency, and dissolution. On the other: a reinvigorated individualism, a sense of the government as servant of the people, not the master.

France is lost; England is sinking. America must survive if Western Civilization is to have any hope at all of surviving the perils yet to come.

It is strange that he has no apology for his affiliations with terror in the face of this threat. Even more strange that in the electoral world he faces no real challenge from any direction. Gays will vote for a man because he is Democrat even though he won't renounce Muslim intolerance of gays. Blacks will vote for a man whose policies since his first election doubled their unemployment etc. One party rule and no challenge within his own party.

No challenge, but also no enthusiasm. Hard to get excited about the ideology of economic destruction during worse times. The electoral difference this year is that a lot of urban liberals and black voters in Minneapolis will presumably not vote, and their absence could swing the gubernatorial election the other way.

We Coloradans already know that Democrat gubernatorial candidate and Denver mayor John Hickenlooper doesn’t think much of folks outside his liberal metropolitan jurisdiction. Now, it’s documented on video. My friend and fellow Colorado resident Michael Sandoval at National Review has the scoop on Hickenlooper’s public contempt for “backwards” rural Colorado residents — which he shared with a left-wing interviewer late last year.

1: I'm thinking like Ellison is worthy of continued observation, perhaps on the Islam in America and/or the Homeland Security threads.

2: I continue to really not like the way that some races are tightening. Spreads in the polls that used to be in the double digits are now often in mid single digits or in the margin of error. After all the cockiness about the coming tsunami, anything that underdelivers is not going to be good for the cause of freedom.

"I continue to really not like the way that some races are tightening. Spreads in the polls that used to be in the double digits are now often in mid single digits or in the margin of error. After all the cockiness about the coming tsunami, anything that underdelivers is not going to be good for the cause of freedom."

Agreed. It is getting me nervous too.The nanny state is like a cancer. Look at the mess in Europe. Now the crats in many localities are calling for *non* citizens to have the "right" to vote.It is always the crats who want to increase their political power with goodies courtesy of taxpayers.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid repeatedly lied to federal immigration and FBI agents and submitted false federal documents to the Department of Homeland Security to cover up her illegal seven-year marriage to a Lebanese national who was the subject of an Oklahoma City Joint Terror Task Force investigation, FoxNews.com has learned.

Diana Tejada, Reid’s Hispanic Press Secretary, admitted to receiving payment for “some of her expenses” in exchange for fraudulently marrying Bassam Mahmoud Tarhini in 2003, strictly so he could obtain permanent U.S. residency, according to court documents.

Tarhini, now 37, was held in jail and at an immigration detention center in connection with his 2009 indictment on felony charges, documents show. He pleaded guilty to entering a fraudulent marriage to evade immigration laws — a Class D felony — in November 2009, and he was deported in March 2010.

Tejada, now 28, was never charged for her role in the crime.

“We did not charge the woman, and of course we don’t discuss the reasons we don’t charge people,” said Bob Troester, spokesman for the Western District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted the case, which began as an FBI investigation out of the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would not comment on why it took five years to investigate the couple's marriage.

As recently as five weeks ago, on Sept. 21, 2010, Tejada appeared as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program in her official capacity as a spokeswoman for Harry Reid.

Monday evening, Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley said Tejada was no longer employed by Reid’s office. When asked when Tejada left Reid’s services, the spokesman had no comment.

Manley provided this statement to FoxNews.com:

“Our office was not previously aware of these allegations and, following an internal investigation, the staffer at issue is no longer with our office. The conduct alleged, which took place several years before the staffer worked for Senator Reid, was clearly wrong. But the bottom line remains that this story was a desperation measure by partisan Republicans, who have stooped to slinging mud about junior staffers to score points in the waning days of her campaign.”

In court documents, Tejada, who was also the Press Secretary of Hispanic Media for the Senate Majority Conference Committee, is referred to as “an uncharged coconspirator in the crime of perjury, filing false immigration documents, the crime of sham marriage.”

According to interviews and court records obtained by FoxNews.com, Tejada knowingly filed false documents with the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services; lied in in-person interviews with ICE and FBI agents; and submitted fraudulent visa application affidavits and marriage license documents — all in attempt to use her status as an American citizen to get Tarhini permanent residency.

As a result of her actions, according to court documents, Tarhini was able to obtain a work permit.

“I don’t think they could’ve prosecuted the case without one of the two of them saying something, but I suspect they chose to work with the American citizen other than Bassam.”

A Justice Department source familiar with the investigation said:

"As exhibited in the court documents, the case prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Oklahoma City was a straightforward case involving two individuals who entered into a fraudulent marriage during college in order for one to evade immigration laws and obtain lawful residence."

Tarhini entered the U.S. in 2000 on a student visa to attend Oklahoma City University, where Tejada was also a student. They became friends and married in September 2003 so he could avoid compulsory service in the Lebanese National Army, Tejada later told officials. She was 21 years old at the time; he was 30.

Click here to see a copy of Tejada and Tarhini's marriage certificate.

Two months after their marriage, Tejada submitted an affidavit sponsoring Tarhini’s request for adjustment of status, affirming on his I-485 application for a green card — under penalty of perjury — that she was his wife.

Court records show that Tejada signed numerous affidavits fraudulently representing her marriage, including forms documenting her financial and employment information along with a signed obligation to support Tarhini.

As part of the process, documents show, she and Tarhini attended an August 31, 2004, meeting at Citizenship and Immigration Services in Oklahoma City, where they misrepresented their marriage to immigration officials.

The next year, Tarhini stayed in Oklahoma while Tejada moved to Washington D.C., where she began working as a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, court and public records show.

In 2008, five years after he filed his visa application, Tarhini filed a suit against ICE officials to force a decision regarding the application — a strategy commonly employed when visa decisions appear to be taking an inordinate amount of time.

In 2008, sources with knowledge of the case told FoxNews.com, the FBI — working with the Oklahoma City Joint Terrorism Task Force — sent what’s called a collateral request to ICE, asking them to track down Tejada to interview her about Tarhini.

At this point, Tarhini was a subject of interest in an Oklahoma JTTF investigation, sources said.

In May or June 2008, a source told FoxNews.com, Tejada was interviewed by ICE and FBI agents in Washington, and she maintained that her marriage was legitimate.

In October 2008, Tejada began working for Reid.

On Nov 3, 2008, ICE and FBI agents re-interviewed Tejada in Washington, according to documents and interviews. This time, sources said, agents presented a slew of evidence against her and Tarhini, and Tejada broke down and confessed that her marriage was a lie, carried out to get Tarhini U.S. residency.

According to court records, she also told authorities that she and Tarhini had never dated nor consummated their marriage.

She told officials that she and Tarhini had discussed divorce, but they agreed to wait a while longer — until December 2008 — to see if his visa would be approved, records state.

In the presence of the federal agents, Tejada withdrew her visa petition for Tarhini, stopping his application to become a permanent resident, and signed a sworn affidavit saying that the marriage was a sham.

Tejada, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting, expressed concern about her job and said she was worried about Reid's reaction to her sham marriage. The federal agents told her she had an obligation to tell Reid, and sources said they believed she would inform her boss.

The highest level of management inside the Department of Homeland Security was aware that she worked for Reid, multiple sources confirmed, and following protocol, the majority leader should have been informed of the investigation through those channels, as well.

But in July 2009, when an ICE agent testifying at Tarhini’s preliminary deportation hearing was asked specifically about Tejada’s employer, the agent did not say it was the U.S. Senate.

ICE Special Agent Rebecca Perkins: “Currently she is employed with the — a Hispanic center organization.”

Byers: “It’s a — it’s a — it's something that is a public service group for the Hispanic community. Is that a fair statement, or something to that degree?”

Perkins: “Yes”

According to sources with knowledge of the November 2008 meeting, Tejada also told ICE and FBI agents that she was concerned about some of Tarhini’s associates, including the best man at her wedding, a Pakistani national named Amer Awli, whom she described as “very secretive.” Awli's current whereabouts are unknown.

Following Tarhini’s arrest in 2009, he was interviewed by FBI agents who sources say asked about his ties to extremists groups. Some sources said they determined he did not have ties to any terror group, but other sources close to the case said that could not be ruled out.

“Not all of my cases involve the FBI,” said Tarhini’s immigration attorney, Timothy Lee Cook. “Certainly, there was something out there that caught their attention.”

When asked what that might be, Cook said: “FBI’s not going to tell anybody that. And believe me, I asked.”

ICE provided details of Tarhini’s deportation but referred additional questions to the Western District of Oklahoma's U.S. Attorney's Office.

On March 20, 2009, Tarhini’s visa application for status as a lawful permanent resident was denied due to fraud and misrepresentation of his marriage to Tejada, court records state.

That same day, Tarhini was administratively arrested by ICE "due to failure to maintain his non-immigrant student status and fraudulent marriage," court records state. "He was no longer attending the Oklahoma City University, thus violating his immigration status."

In August 2009 Tarhini was indicted on two felony charges: Entering into a marriage to evade immigration laws, and subscribing to false statements. As part of a plea deal last November, he pleaded guilty to the first charge, and the second was dropped.

Tarhini was sentenced to time served and three years' supervised release. ICE spokeswoman Gillian Brigham confirmed to FoxNews.com that Tarhini was “removed” from the U.S. on March 3, 2010.

Tejada made $52,451.60 last year working for Reid.

Last month Tejada spoke in her official capacity as Spokesperson, Office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as a guest on a Spanish-language radio program’s immigration-themed special on the DREAM Act, which included a section in which the host answered listeners’ questions “about the do’s and don’ts of applying for residency and naturalization.”

Tejada filed for divorce, “alleging incompatibility,” on March 16, 2010. The divorce was finalized on July 6.

It looks like there is about five different felonies Tejada could easily be charged and prosecuted for, but like Michelle Obama's violation of election laws, they don't apply to dems or the New Black Panther Party.

• A jingle that spells out her name and features the words, “Fill in the oval, write it on the line.”

• Campaign posters made to look like ballots with her name written in and the oval beside “Write-in” filled in.

• Small handheld signs depicting a hand with her name on it.

• T-shirts depicting a ballot with her name written in.

JNeither Joe Miller nor Scott McAdams, for instance, was invited on stage here at the annual convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives last week. The only candidate allowed to address the 4,000 in attendance — and the candidate the federation eventually endorsed — was the incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, the Republican now running as a write-in candidate.

“You humble me, you honor me,” Ms. Murkowski told the crowd. “I will fight for you as long as I am able.”

Just weeks ago, Ms. Murkowski’s bid looked like a long shot. And it still may be — reliable polls in Alaska are few and far between.

But since being embarrassed in an upset by Mr. Miller, a protégé of Sarah Palin’s, in the Republican primary, Ms. Murkowski has defied conventional wisdom and her colleagues in the Republican establishment by waging a credible race as a write-in candidate. Analysts and Alaskans now say she could overcome the odds and logistical hurdles to win, something no senator has done since Strom Thurmond of South Carolina in 1954. Or she could be a spoiler.

Democrats insist that their nominee, Mr. McAdams, can pull out a victory in this heavily Republican state if he can paint Ms. Murkowski as too conservative, and her write-in campaign as too risky, for Democrats who might defect to her out of fear of a victory by Mr. Miller.

The night after the federation conference, it was Mr. Miller and Mr. McAdams who appeared together for a debate at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Ms. Murkowski was nowhere to be found, but that did not stop the other two from attacking her: She is too liberal. No, she is too conservative.

“Maybe we ought to debate Lisa for the rest of the night,” Mr. McAdams quipped at one point. “‘What do you think, Joe?’”

A few moments later, when the candidates were supposed to ask each other questions, Mr. Miller said, “Scott, I’m tempted just to ask questions about Lisa.”

Later, the moderator inadvertently addressed one of them as “Scott Miller.”

Ms. Murkowski has attended most debates, but in a year filled with unconventional races across the country, hers is among the most unlikely. She has shed her sometimes mechanical public presence and struck populist notes — she even sang during a stump speech in Fairbanks last week.

“Fill in the oval, write it on the line,” the senator sang in a shaky contralto, striving to create an Election Day anthem out of a supporter’s original tune, called “Cinderella.”

Mr. Miller remains the presumptive favorite, but his lead has narrowed after a string of setbacks since his surprising primary victory.

News reports in Alaska have raised questions about everything from farm subsidies, unemployment and government health care benefits and even a low-income fishing license that Mr. Miller or his family members have received. Critics say the reports have undermined his credibility when he argues against the federal health care bill and unemployment benefits or vows to eliminate the Department of Education and eventually privatize Social Security.

Over the weekend, after Mr. Miller refused for weeks to answer questions about disciplinary action taken against him when he worked as a lawyer for Fairbanks North Star Borough, a judge ordered records of the incident released as soon as Tuesday. (The ruling also came after Mr. Miller’s security guards handcuffed Tony Hopfinger, the editor of Alaska Dispatch, an online news site, when he tried to ask Mr. Miller about the matter at a campaign event.)

Mr. Miller may still fight the judge’s order, though in a debate in Anchorage on Sunday, he admitted to being suspended from work for an ethics violation in 2008 for using government computers for political purposes. He left the job in the summer of 2009.

Questions about transparency have followed the candidate. In addition to his reluctance to discuss the ethics violation, he has also brushed off the handcuffing of the journalist, saying he played no role in the incident. Mr. Miller lives down a series of long gravel roads at the edge of Fairbanks. Security cameras are positioned to monitor the entrance to his house, which sits out of sight.

Asked about the security cameras in a brief interview, Mr. Miller initially asked a reporter to identify who revealed their existence. When the reporter declined to do so, Mr. Miller noted that he had once been a federal magistrate judge.

“There were security issues on occasion while I was U.S. magistrate judge,” he said.

While Mr. Miller worries that Ms. Murkowski will win Republican votes, Democrats hope to cast her as too conservative.

Alaska’s other senator, Mark Begich, a Democrat, who has had several staff members join or volunteer for the McAdams campaign, noted that Mr. McAdams, the mayor of Sitka, might need only a third of all votes to win. Presuming a 60 percent turnout, that is about 100,000 votes.

Underscoring both sides’ concerns over the Murkowski campaign, lawyers for state Democrats and Republicans have joined in a lawsuit accusing the State Division of Elections of improperly providing lists of write-in candidates to all voting locations and, in at least one polling place, in Homer, posting the lists inside voting booths.

A letter from the state elections director, Gail Fenumiai, written last week before the lawsuit was filed, said the lists were intended to be provided only to voters who requested them, not posted inside booths.

On Monday, after weeks of silence in the race, Ms. Palin used her Facebook page to attack Ms. Murkowski for comments the senator made in a televised debate the night before in Anchorage. Ms. Murkowski had raised the subject of Mr. Miller’s military service and questioned whether his conduct in the campaign was honorable.

“I find it astonishing that a sitting U.S. senator from Alaska would challenge the honor of a decorated combat veteran,” Ms. Palin wrote.

Ms. Murkowski is having to position herself carefully.

Asked whether she would do more to win Democratic votes, the senator said in an interview that she would not change her party. But, she said, “I’ve made it very clear that when I go back to Washington it will be because Alaskans have sent me back, not Republicans.”

She went on to name a range of constituencies she was courting, from libertarians and environmentalists to Democrats and Republicans. A moment later, just to be safe, an aide leaned in to clarify that she was indeed still a Republican.

Baed on the latest polls the repubs need all six tossups to get to 51. Of the four the republicans hold leads. OF the other two the Dems Washington and WVirginia are ahead by 2to 6 points. Both Dems are under 50% in those races. Morris thinks that if the Dem leader is under 50% and the Rep is within two or three the Rep will win.So the Rep may come up one seat short. Another wild card is the vote manipulation of the Demcocrats. The gift cards, the false write in ballots, the ballots (mail in ) that will disappear etc.